"I am asking, do you or do you not recognize the fact that Obama was was raised and mentored by communists."

I heard he isn't even an American citizen. And he is a muslim extremist.

I know I am going to regret this but, where's your evidence of this (and this is the same garbage we heard before the 2008 election)? And don't bother posting something from Mises.org or any bat-sheet crazy blog you read. And even if he was, does that set in concrete that he is a communist? I mean, I would bet a million dollars that your dad doesn't buy into that kooky stuff you do unless you held him at gunpoint and made him.

Tucker, I dont think you are getting the answers you are looking for because you frame the questions as if you feel they are naive Americans who do not realize its socialism\communism, and if you just showed them that they would change their tune. All you get from that is sarcasm in return.

Maybe the right question is asking how they feel about socialism\communism. Maybe they arent opposed to it, and/or welcome it. Its pointless to try and show something as being bad because its socialist to people who dont disagree with socialism. If that is the case then you are just

No, he's getting sarcasm in return because he's acting as if he's a dimwit. Let's see.... If I advocate any policy whatsoever that helps the poor, I'm a Marxist/Socialist. But if I'm for private ownership of business, I'm not a Capitalist? Tucker's problem is that when debating a specific issue and you present an argument he can't handle.... out comes the Marxist accusation.

He's either stupid or dishonest. Since bearing false witness is a sin and being stupid is not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and stick with stupid. Yes, you are correct there are elements of socialism that I agree with. And far more that I agree with about capitalism. A healthy economy is going to strike a balance with aspects of both. Black and white thinkers (and I use the term thinker loosely) aren't capable debating the hard choices that affect that balance. They are as intellectually equipped as a parrot.

Thats my point! You agree with certain points of socialism. Therefore, him screaming "socialism" isnt going to generate some sort of revelation that would change your stance. Its not taboo to you as he is expecting it to be. You know its socialism, and you believe it is needed. His comments sound like he doesnt think you realize its socialism.

He is under the impression that we are all capitalists and if we were just shown that socialism is being snuck in under our nose we would all jump to action. But as you say, not everyone is opposed to some socialism.

It wasn't clear if you understand that point because of this statement....

" Its pointless to try and show something as being bad because its socialist to people who dont disagree with socialism."

It isn't that I agree with socialism as a fundamental political philosophy. I am more a capitalist than a socialist, and it would be deceptive to say I agree with socialism. I don't identify with socialism. I identify with cause and effect and how it fits into our society, which is fundamentally capitalist.

Ironically it's likely that the moderates who pay attention to cause and effect are the one's that will have to save capitalism from the extremists like Tucker. His offensive narrative and policies (if enacted) would result in a lop-sided society that would grow increasingly towards a socialist point of view in order to meet their needs.

Thats my point! You agree with certain points of socialism. Therefore, him screaming "socialism" isnt going to generate some sort of revelation that would change your stance. Its not taboo to you as he is expecting it to be. You know its socialism, and you believe it is needed. His comments sound like he doesnt think you realize its socialism.

He is under the impression that we are all capitalists and if we were just shown that socialism is being snuck in under our nose we would all jump to action. But as you say, not everyone is opposed to some socialism.

Other "socialist stuff" that most "capitalists" (er... Americans) don't have a problem with:

If we're worried about "socialism being snuck in under our noses," well, that happened several generations ago. Most Americans see the benefits of these programs as outweighing their burden on our otherwise freewheeling winner take all capitalist model.

The tweaking (even substantial tweaking) of any of the above programs is not going to result in high stepping military parades in front of a President wearing a comically large hat.

(and as a digression... has anyone ever noticed that the more petty the despot, the bigger his general's hat?)

And this is why it is pointless to deal with the posters here. You can't counter a cult of personality and it is beyond pointless to argue with total idiots... I rest my case, everyone, you now know what and who you are dealing with.

If youíve got a business, you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen.

And this is why it is pointless to deal with the posters here. You can't counter a cult of personality and it is beyond pointless to argue with total idiots... I rest my case, everyone, you now know what and who you are dealing with.

If youve got a business, you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen.

This is one of the few times I can agree with Romney...

Lol the irony ...

Your not understanding what the "that" is referring to in the presidents statement suggests that your non-socialist understanding of the engrish language that you received in your desert bunker from "true patriots" prolly wasn't so good.

Apparently my taxpayer supported take more from the rich and give for free to the poor socialist education wasn't so bad after all.

You're not smarter than the rest of us.
You don't have a deeper understanding of economics, politics, or business than the rest of us.
You don't have a keen insight into the mind and psyche of Obama, or anyone else for that matter.

What it appears you do have is a very limited world view colored heavily by preconceptions based on a general dissatisfaction with your own station in life, lack of curiosity, rote indoctrination via right wing talk radio or some other medium.

I suggest you head over to Prison Planet, or Glenn Beck, or Rush's website where you can commiserate with like minded individuals about the decline and fall of Western Civilization, but please stop your incessant whining.

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

It was apparent that the "that" in the quote was referring to the infrastructure that he had just talked about preceding the quote in question. That particular statement was poorly worded and if you insisted on being literal and adhering to strict grammar then you could interpret "that" as meaning the business. However I don't change my whole political stance just because people want to insist on strict interpretation of grammar in one sentence in one speech when I know that it's a mischaracterization of the message.

and will continue to do so... I just wanted to make sure you knew "that"...

BTW, John, if you want to bring religion into this discussion I would refer you to

Ecclesiastes Chapter 10

1 As dead flies give perfume a bad smell,
so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.
3 Even as fools walk along the road,
they lack sense
and show everyone how stupid they are.
4 If a rulerís anger rises against you,
do not leave your post;
calmness can lay great offenses to rest.

5 There is an evil I have seen under the sun,
the sort of error that arises from a ruler:
6 Fools are put in many high positions,
while the rich occupy the low ones.
7 I have seen slaves on horseback,
while princes go on foot like slaves.

8 Whoever digs a pit may fall into it;
whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake.
9 Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them;
whoever splits logs may be endangered by them.

10 If the ax is dull
and its edge unsharpened,
more strength is needed,
but skill will bring success.

11 If a snake bites before it is charmed,
the charmer receives no fee.

12 Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious,
but fools are consumed by their own lips.
13 At the beginning their words are folly;
at the end they are wicked madnessó
14 and fools multiply words.

No one knows what is comingó
who can tell someone else what will happen after them?

15 The toil of fools wearies them;
they do not know the way to town.

16 Woe to the land whose king was a servant[a]
and whose princes feast in the morning.
17 Blessed is the land whose king is of noble birth
and whose princes eat at a proper timeó
for strength and not for drunkenness.

18 Through laziness, the rafters sag;
because of idle hands, the house leaks.

19 A feast is made for laughter,
wine makes life merry,
and money is the answer for everything.

20 Do not revile the king even in your thoughts,
or curse the rich in your bedroom,
because a bird in the sky may carry your words,
and a bird on the wing may report what you say.

"(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Tucker
I am absolutely against Obama. He is, pretty much what you say he is, but you are preaching to those that refuse to see just how damaging and destructive he is.

There are plenty of other examples that support the notion that Obama needs to go. I don't blame the right side for bouncing on this one sentence, even though they too know that they are taking it out of context. Obama, after all, is the master at these sorts of "spins". He is pandering to those that believe that: success is evil, you can spend your way out of debt, the government will save us all, oil companies are evil ....etc... He is not concerned about the national debt. He just wants to get re-elected.

the left claim that the right is brainwashed by talk radio, and the right claim that the left is gullible and brainwashed by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the others. I for one don't care for this administrations policies/stance on just about everything. There are endless examples of his lack of leadership ability, decision making....etc....

Just look at stimulus money that went towards energy. It was full of bad decisions, short cuts taken, kickbacks, cronyism, public funds lost only after executives of companies got paid first.......

Heck, the Obama camp tried to blame Bush for contacting Solyndra first. It's true, they did. But, they also decided that it was a bad risk. I guess Obama's team disagreed.

Cliff,
Be very careful, you don't want to appear as "that" guy, you will be attacked and belittled and told to leave...

John,
That is great passage, thanks for reminding me of it. I would counter with Isaiah 36:12

12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

P.S. Tucker, still waiting on evidence of the Obama's communist upbringing.

Evidence? Are you serious? Try reading one of his books, try reading about his relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, try reading some of his father's work, try actually doing some research... Oh, but wait, you are a fanboy and are in the cult of personality... Obama is great, and I'm a just a racist.

as far as the Bible goes, John made a completely absurd religious reference about false witness, and I was doing the same...

When Obama implied at the Roanoke, Virginia rally that some businessmen refuse to pay for public works from which they benefit, he presented a thesis which, like a three-legged stool, relies on three assumptions that must allbe true for the argument to remain standing:

1. That the public programs he mentioned in his speech constitute a significant portion of the federal budget;
2. That business owners donít already pay far more than their fair share of these expenses; and
3. That these specific public benefits are a federal issue, rather than a local issue.
If any of these legs fails, then the whole argument collapses.

For good measure, we wonít just kick out one, weíll kick out all three.[...]

OK. Fine. Letís absolutely concede this point to Obama and Warren: There are some government activities that benefit us all, including business owners.

And for the sake of argument letís just allow for a moment that the federal government is the best, most efficient and only supplier of these benefits. You win, Elizabeth and Barack.

But having conceded this central point, let us now ask the key follow-up question, which is the first leg of their three-point hypothesis: What percentage of the federal budget is devoted to these universally beneficial public works?[...]

Tucker, your myopic article is hardly accurate. Local and national businesses benefit from welfare. If you as a Congressman introduce a bill to restrict food stamps to a very limited selection of foods that constitute healthy nutrition at the lowest cost, guess what will happen? You will find an onslaught of food industry lobbyists at your doorstep. They are there not because the weather happens to be nice in DC, but because it's of financial interest to the industry.

Govt spending benefits many businesses on the local and national level.

I'll add something else... If I made over $200K a year I would perhaps vote for Romney. I wouldn't make a bunch of dumb accusations about Obama being a Marxist or not having a BC. I wouldn't even really have anything bad to say about Obama any more than Romney. I would just say that I'm voting for Romney because he's vowed not to raise my taxes.

When people point to speeches like the one Obama made, I wouldn't distort the meaning. My counter argument would be that while I benefit from govt, I would benefit more from govt that was prudent in it's spending. I would say that when the people can come together and start demanding that govt implement good policy instead of being a huge bloated bureaucracy then we can talk about taxes. And even though Romney is just another politician that promotes the status quo, at least he's promised not to tax me higher.

My argument would be that my business doesn't benefit from trillion dollars wars and nation building. And that I don't have millions in my pockets to higher lobbyists to write laws in my favor. Since at the $200K+ level I'm a small business, I'd argue that I don't make money because of cheap imports. And the people who buy my services won't be buying them if they can't find jobs because we send them all overseas. And even if Romney is a job exporter, not raising my taxes is far more a sure thing than hoping Obama is going to stop the job loss.

What baffles me is that you have Tucker, Cliff, and others proclaiming Obama as "the worst ever", yet no mention of the Republican-led Congress which has an approval rating hovering around in the teens. The only thing they hang their hats on is the 9 pointless repeal votes they have had on Obamacare.

no time to really respond, but what gets me is that you , Jeremy, ignored my comment about Obama's energy spending blunders. You've also ignored my posts about the Ryan/ Geithner discussions. Also, his own Senate won't approve his trillion dollar budgets for 3 years running. Where are the comments about that? His own administration agrees that we are headed for financial ruin, but their stance is that we will worry about that later. How about that one!!??

I have addressed the approval rating of congress. It just illustrates Obama's brilliant ability to spin his way through his term. Congress won't cooperate. congress sits on their hands, tea baggers are ruining the country......BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Well let's see.... massive trillion dollar budget was voted in under Republican Bush. Democratic Obama boondoggle Solyndra is what? $500M over a couple years vs years of Republican Bush Booddoggle $10B/month over many years for Iraq war? Energy blunder = maybe 0.05 percent of Iraq blunder?

Where are we going with this line of logic that is supposed to demonstrate the Democratic President is a massive failure that can only be fixed with a Republican President who in 2008 was still vowing the big fight against terrorism?

WTF is research supposed to uncover? That the country would be much better off if we all had enough money to warrant putting it off-shore accounts?

What baffles me is that you have Tucker, Cliff, and others proclaiming Obama as "the worst ever", yet no mention of the Republican-led Congress which has an approval rating hovering around in the teens. The only thing they hang their hats on is the 9 pointless repeal votes they have had on Obamacare.

OMG! Talk about the kettle calling the pot black... when was the last budget passed again? I haven't seen you post anything about the US Senate? The democrats had total control of the senate and congress, yet they didn't do anything that needed to be done. Why didn't they deal with Bush tax cuts instead of pushing it down the line with a one year extension?

Mathew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Well let's see.... massive trillion dollar budget was voted in under Republican Bush. Democratic Obama boondoggle Solyndra is what? $500M over a couple years vs years of Republican Bush Booddoggle $10B/month over many years for Iraq war? Energy blunder = maybe 0.05 percent of Iraq blunder?

Where are we going with this line of logic that is supposed to demonstrate the Democratic President is a massive failure that can only be fixed with a Republican President who in 2008 was still vowing the big fight against terrorism?

WTF is research supposed to uncover? That the country would be much better off if we all had enough money to warrant putting it off-shore accounts?

WTF is research supposed to uncover; how about the fact that the Iraq War Resolution was bipartisan effort. I keep reading the same crap out of you about the war in Iraq, how it was just the Republicans and Bush, blah, blah, blah..

This is WTF research will show you...

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution and 39% of House Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

Tucker, so you are saying that we would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if Bush was not President? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have to say it's funny how 0.05% of the spending on the Iraq war is a hot button issue, but the war itself isn't. Obama went to Libya? Is he over there doing some nation rebuilding right now? I bet he must of sent in the some C-130 packed full of American currency too. Probably several hundred tons like Bush.

Yes! I think Iraq was the result of 9/11 and the American people, being largely ignorant, were out for blood... Obama hasn't exactly got us out of the wars!

And you fail to remember or realize that I hate Bush probably more than any president in US history, other than maybe Wilson. I'm a Ron Paul Republican or a Conservative Libertarian. I hate all the wars, all the foreign aid, the United Nations, pretty much all of it.

Now admit you were wrong about the Iraq War Resolution and WTF research will do for you...

I am in complete disagreement with your assertion that we would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if Bush had not been President. If I change my mind then I'll be happy to admit it. Thank you for answering the question in a straight forward manner. That's far more than I've gotten from others who have debated me on this issue.

Tucker, so you are saying that we would have invaded Iraq in 2003 if Bush was not President? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have to say it's funny how 0.05% of the spending on the Iraq war is a hot button issue, but the war itself isn't. Obama went to Libya? Is he over there doing some nation rebuilding right now? I bet he must of sent in the some C-130 packed full of American currency too. Probably several hundred tons like Bush.

Obama's war in Libya is worse than anything Bush did except maybe the Patriot Act, Bush went through congress, Obama side-stepped congress and violated the Constitution. Futhermore, his Defense Secretary says he answers to NATO, not congress...

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, "We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?"

The Defense Secretary responded "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."

Despite Sessions' repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

"I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat," Sessions said. "I don't believe it's close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution."

This is why I hate Obama, he doesn't follow the Constitution... he took over GM and gave equity to the unions versus the bondholders, violating well over a 200 years of bankruptcy law. I could go on and on and on...

John,
If you grew up watching your dad and a half dozen other men you called your heros break down and cry while sitting around a card table in basement as often as I did, you would know how I feel about war. My dad has scars all over his body from shrapnel and is missing half his foot, he can't hear out of his left year, and doesn't have any peripheral vision on his right side. He says none of these things hurts him near as bad as seeing all the people he killed and all the friends he saw get killed. War sucks and we should never go to war unless we are attacked or our freedom is in peril.

research would show you that this President took stimulus money and recklessly gave to "green energy" companies. The results were that "we" risked 2 billion to create 5100 jobs with only 1500 of those jobs deemed as permanent. The result after 2 years: Solana solar plant= $24.2 million per job, Abengoa Biomass= $2 million per job created....80% of grant money in 2009, equaling $1 billion was given to foreign companies overseas to build wind turbines. The next $2 billion of grants had 79% going to foreign companies.
His weatherizing homes project was just as big of a failure. It created no jobs and $5 billion was allocated.

Overall, Obama spent $80 billion trying to force a robust clean energy market, while trying to make it more difficult for companies within the "dirty" energy arena to do business. He waged a war on the coal industry, destroyed thousands of coastal jobs with his moratorium on oil drilling.Even after the ban was lifted, the red tape and new regulations have all but stopped drilling permits.

obama didn't learn from the Solyndra fiasco. He doesn't seem to have the ability to re-group or re-think a plan.

I could go on and on about the money that this administration has thrown down the toilet. I could lists stats on who got the money (cronyism), names of people within his own government that have fought him at every level.....etc....

So, if you don't agree with me, fine. But don't accuse ME of being puppet mastered or not having facts or reference to back up my claims.

having said that

I am really wanting to get away from these threads. I know, I'm failing miserably at that. So, unless my name specifically comes up (again) I probably won't respond any more.
I respect the opinions of those that differ from mine, I just disagree.

My philosophy: one and done, until we get someone who can unit us and make the hard choices that we need made

How so? "Obama's energy spending blunders" were a popular fad with the GOP back in 2005. From politifact.com:

"The Energy Department's loan guarantee program was created as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Bush.

In his signing speech, Bush lauded the bill's support for clean technology, though he didn't specifically mention the loan guarantees.

The loan guarantees were designed to "support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks."

Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his 2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department issued its final rules for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them."

So call them blunders, f-ups, whatever, but it seems to me that this is simply a continuation of what Bush and the repubs started in 2005. Again Bush was trying to get the loan approved prior to leaving office in Jan. 2009. Why is that?

So the Solyndra deal didn't work out, but I don't see you bashing Reagan, who you said we need someone like as president, about the Star Wars fiasco back in his presidency. How much did that cost the taxpayers?

Tucker, Gaddifi, a leader that had posed a great threat and was responsible for hundreds of Americans being killed and no American lives were lost. There is no "Libya war". I guess an Iran-Contra type operation would have suited you better?

here we go again with things that happened in the past. I for one am not okay with a trillion dollar budget each year. I'm not okay with a war on energy in order to push a green agenda. I'm not okay with class warfare and a redistribution of wealth. I'm not okay with an over regulating government. I'm not okay with a government that continues to make it's population dependent on hand outs.......

although past administrations have been guilty of much of these things, Obama has taken it to a new level. You might be okay with his wasting of billions of stimulus dollars, because the President before him might have made the same poor decisions, or the next guy might not do any better, but I'm not.
Obama was supposed to be the guy that got us out of (what the left claims) is Bush's recession. He has not only failed, he has made it worse. His own Treasury secretary supports the notion that after the next few years, Obama's policies will become a major drain on the nation. That by itself, is enough for me (even though there is a ton more we could pile on).

We will just have to agree to disagree

but, your arguments fall short if you want to sway my opinions. I think that they fall short anyway, and just redirect.

^Well that is mighty brave to take solace in believing Mitt will do anything to curb spending. In the unlikely case that he wins, he may redirect where some the funds go, but the spending will not subside. I mean, how much do you think a full-blown war with Iran will cost? But I believe Obama will win, and we can have this discussion again in 2016 with two new contenders. Maybe the GOP will finally put someone electable on the ballot??

well, I can't really disagree there. I am sticking with: they all should be one and done until Washington gets the message that same ol' same ol' isn't acceptable. Whoever wins, I hope that they don't dig a hole to large to get out of....

well, I can't really disagree there. I am sticking with: they all should be one and done until Washington gets the message that same ol' same ol' isn't acceptable. Whoever wins, I hope that they don't dig a hole to large to get out of....

The problem with that (term limits) is that you know who runs it when everyone is still learning the job by the time it's over?

The lobbyists. No elected official is an expert on every topic in the world. Instead they rely on experts for information. Many of those experts also come to Washington to spin, sell and advocate for an agenda. Those are the people with real power.

Come to Nevada sometime and see how well our term-limited-only-meet-every-other-year legislature works. It's pathetic.

If you get rid of all of the people with experience, all you have are inexperienced people. Ask cambodia how that worked out.

here we go again with things that happened in the past. I for one am not okay with a trillion dollar budget each year. I'm not okay with a war on energy in order to push a green agenda. I'm not okay with class warfare and a redistribution of wealth. I'm not okay with an over regulating government. I'm not okay with a government that continues to make it's population dependent on hand outs.......

Tucker, Gaddifi, a leader that had posed a great threat and was responsible for hundreds of Americans being killed and no American lives were lost. There is no "Libya war". I guess an Iran-Contra type operation would have suited you better?

Jeremy
This is the very reason that I dismiss everything you say here, you are so naive it is ridiculous. We took military action against Libya and Gaddifi and didn't go through congress as required by the US Constitution. I don't care we if killed Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or Saloth Sar, it was done without following the rule of law. Now the Obama administration has instituted a "Kill List" where US Citizens can be targeted and killed without a trial ever taking place.

The same Obama administration decides what laws they will enforce include the defense of marriage act and immigration laws. Here in Arizona we have illegals protesting in the streets for Obama and talking like he is the second coming of Christ. What you and the illegals fail to understand, is that by not following the law, and basically doing whatever they want, the Obama administration and the illegals are turning this country into the very place they left.

You don't understand the first thing about this country, about liberty, and as a result, you don't know what you are losing. What are you going to do when a crazy Republican president does what Obama is doing? Will you champion their efforts at fascism, or will you cry that something is wrong? Just remember that Obama is setting a precedent that will be followed by future presidents unless we stop him/them.

When you served, do you remember the oath that you swore? Maybe someone should have taught you what it meant and not just had you parrot it back to them...

Your problem Tucker is that nobody gives a crap about what you think is against the law. It's a matter of priorities. The DOM act was a stupid law and if Obama is violating it, then good for him. Where are all the arrests in the banking crisis? So much fraud and nobody held accountable? People making millions and paying only 15% income tax? Romney probably wants to make that zero.

So the assistance that a Democratic President gave NATO for Libya is too much, but protracted "legal" trillion dollars wars by a Republican President are OK because Congress approved the funding. You just don't seem to understand that substance is more important to the people then lawyers dancing on the head of a pin over legality, which is never definitive except in "words" when it passes through a SC that can't even agree on what the Constitution means.

It's time for people to stop whining about Obama because it's a dead end street. All it does is marginalize your influence because it's not debating meaningful issues. If you think anyone who supports Obama is really concerned about his override of DOM, then you are truly out of touch. And all your screaming about it being illegal isn't going to sway a single opinion.

The DOM act was a stupid law and if Obama is violating it, then good for him. Where are all the arrests in the banking crisis? So much fraud and nobody held accountable? People making millions and paying only 15% income tax? Romney probably wants to make that zero.

Tucker, this is what Obama said, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
In your little clip there the entire sentence before "if you got a business" is deleted, so it changes the whole context. He was talking about the bridge when he stated you didn't build that. Its ok to say you were wrong.

tucker, this is what obama said, "somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
in your little clip there the entire sentence before "if you got a business" is deleted, so it changes the whole context. He was talking about the bridge when he stated you didn't build that. Its ok to say you were wrong.

Yah, its hilarious that the Romney supporters edit out the entire sentence before his you didn't build it comment, even though they used his words at the beginning of the comment, cut out a complete sentence and then continued his speech.

Tucker, give it a rest man. You act as though Obama was the first president to sidestep Congress. It just makes you look like a hypocrite.

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[13] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999."

"Why our Libya strikes don’t require congressional approval"

"U.S. airstrikes against Libya have reignited the perennial debate over whether the president can launch military operations without first securing congressional approval. The answer is found in the Constitution’s text and history, and it must be the same regardless of the president’s political party. Those Republicans accusing President Obama of exceeding his legitimate authority should consider whether they would make the same claims if a Republican were president, as many Democrats previously have done.

The Constitution’s Framers deliberately divided war powers between the president and Congress. As commander in chief, the president has the authority to determine when and how U.S. forces are used. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to raise, support and make rules governing the armed forces, and to determine how much is to be spent in war or peace. Individual officers can be appointed only if the Senate approves, and only Congress can declare war. The debate over the president’s use of force without congressional authorization focuses on this provision.

When the Constitution was adopted, the power to “declare war” was not equivalent to permitting the use of military force.

Nations could, and did, use force without declaring war on their opponents. As a matter of international law, a declaration of war had much more to do with the technical legal regime governing hostilities — dissolving treaties between the belligerent powers and permitting the lawful seizure of public or private enemy property, for example — than with the right to use force in the first place.

The Framers understood this. The British monarch was not only commander in chief but also could declare war. The Framers divided this authority, reserving the latter power to Congress as the national legislature. During the Constitutional Convention, the power to “declare war” was substituted for the power to “make war” in defining congressional authority specifically to clarify that the president could use military force without first seeking Congress’s permission. According to James Madison, the particular concern was that the president should be able to “repel sudden attack.”

Champions of congressional warmaking powers traditionally point to this comment as limiting the president’s independent war powers to defending American soil, but even Madison’s remark was not so narrowly drawn, and the Constitution’s language is not so limited. It gives the president wide latitude to use military force, subject always to the other limits on his authority inherent in congressional control over the budget, size and existence of the national military.

Consistent with this understanding, presidents often have launched military operations without first seeking congressional approval.

Their actions have been more or less controversial depending on the nature, extent and purpose of those operations. Certainly at some point, depending on the extent, purpose and likely duration of hostilities — regime change in Iraq, say — a president must seek congressional approval, either in the form of a declaration of war or less formal use-of-force authorization.

As a practical matter, he may also want that approval to ensure sufficient political support and resources to continue a particular operation, even if not constitutionally required. Congressional authorization also is often critical in defending his actions. It was, for example, Congress’s specific authorization for the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that led the Supreme Court to uphold the detention of captured al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including American citizens.

Justifying the current operations against Libya in this framework is not difficult. Moammar Gaddafi has been an open and persistent enemy of the United States for nearly 40 years. He pioneered state sponsorship of terror attacks against U.S. nationals and others, bombing a Berlin disco in 1986 and a passenger aircraft over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. After the Berlin attack, President Ronald Reagan ordered (also without specific congressional authority) U.S. airstrikes against Libya. If ever there were a ripe candidate for “regime change,” it is Gaddafi.

The Obama administration, however, has not suggested anything so ambitious. The stated goal is to enforce a U.N. Security Council-approved “no-fly zone” as a means of limiting Gaddafi’s ability to attack his citizens. The United States has a right and an obligation as a U.N. member assisting in the implementation of a binding Security Council resolution to take this action — and it is not of a character that would constitutionally require Congress’s approval. If the president later concludes that Gaddafi should be removed by American arms — no small matter given the nation’s other military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq — then congressional approval can and should be sought.

The authors served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush."

Jeremy, do you like Obama, or approve of his methods/performance? People keep throwing up examples of poor methods/performance, and all you ever say is that its ok because some other president did it before. IMO bad behavior isnt excused based on what other presidents did. I say we keep voting a new one in until someone is willing to follow the rules and act like a president should.

Its so funny how GWB gets the "blame" for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq was the unavoidable result of deacades of mismanaging the relationship with Iraq. Neither party could risk the political damage a Sarin attack on the US would have caused once it got out that they knew it was a possibility, yet did nothing. That is why dems in congress approved of the measures. Shouldnt it be NATOs fault for not upholding the ceasefire agreements of Desert Storm? Maybe it should be Clinton's fault for not insisting NATO uphold the ceasefire agreements, or maybe Bush Sr should have razed the place until all the Sarin was confirmed destroyed, or maybe the US should have never given a middle eastern dictator Sarin gas in the first place, or maybe we shouldnt have propped up a dictator we thought we could control. GWB happened to be president when our mismanagement posed a potential threat to the US and he had to make the call. He emplored Saddam to allow UN inspectors back in and secure\account for the Sarin 18 months before firing a shot. Saddam decided to call our bluff.

I hate that we were ever put in the position to need compliance from Iraq. Any number of presidents before GWB could have acted well within their powers and removed this threat at a fraction of the cost, yet did nothing. Not saying GWB is any better. Had 9/11 not happened, he too would have passed the buck.

Jason, you are dodging the point even though it's been presented to you numerous times. It's not that Obama is good, it's that Republican Presidents are worse. Targeting Obama as being different is a failing argument. Not only is it a failing argument, but refusing to acknowledge that point, which has been clearly stated over and over makes you look dense.

When you have two bad choices, it's clear that one is going to pick the bad choice that is more philosophically aligned with your beliefs. Republican's in their desperate attempts to sway people with faulty logic will always ignore this point. I'm not sure if that is stupidity or a Hail Mary political strategy. Because if people get the impression that you can't understand plain English, it's not going to help the credibility of your argument.

And I absolutely disagree with your assessment of needing to go to Iraq. This is another claim that solidifies the belief that Republicans are not good for leading America

"Jeremy, do you like Obama, or approve of his methods/performance? People keep throwing up examples of poor methods/performance, and all you ever say is that its ok because some other president did it before. IMO bad behavior isnt excused based on what other presidents did. I say we keep voting a new one in until someone is willing to follow the rules and act like a president should."

In 2008, I was so ready for a change after the Bush years so I was excited about the election. Honestly, I voted for Hillary in the primaries. But once Obama won the nomination, I became a fan. I even donated some money to his campaign (I have not this election and I am on the fence on whether I will or not). Am I 100% satisfied with my choice? Given that my other option was voting for McCain and the dimwit, you're damn right I am. Have I been totally satisfied with his performance? Of course not. For example, I wish he would have begun to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he was inaugurated. I wish he would have shut down Gitmo like he said during his campaign. For the most part, I think this country is in much better shape than if McCain would have won and I think Obama will do a way better job than Romney will.

And I wasn't bringing up past "bad behavior" to cover Obama's ass with respect to Libya. I was simply stating past actions by former presidents and how it is not usual for presidents to use military actions without Congress' approval, despite Sam's portrayal of it as a unique instance and that no other had done it previously.

John, its easy for a dem to disagree with going to Iraq with the benefit of hindsight. We never wanted in iraq, we just wanted to secure the Sarin now that we were being attacked. Do you not remember trying to do it diplomatically? heck, I wish we never went to Iraq now, since the invasion discovered the deteriorated state of the discovered Sarin. But we had to go in to get that info so.... If we didnt go into Iraq, and later we were gassed with Sarin, you would be saying GWB was the idiot that let it happen knowing full well our enemy had it to use/lend. In your eyes the inaction would have been unforgivable. Was he just supposed to HOPE nothing bad happened? He did that on 9/10. I forgot, you guys are big on HOPE.

I also find it funny that Powell in his famous slide show was convinced Iraq was moving their Sarin to Syria during the stonewall, and what do you know, guess what was just proclaimed in Syria? I wonder if the canisters have made in the USA with Iraqi postage stamps on em?

IMO there has never been anything but two bad choices. Nobody smart enough to run the country would waste their time trying. Politics is for those who are academically accomplished yet inept at actual employment. If we let these guys survive more than one term, it sends a message of tollerance of their BS. As soon as someone with the business sense to run the country comes up to bat they get Ron Pauled into oblivion.

I dont like either candidate, but one of them had his chance and he did nothing with it. He changed nothing and kept up more of the same. he had his shot to be different in a positive way. I did not like many of his plans, but I expected him to make good on them so that the entire country could contrast idealist liberalism with the realities of life on earth.

Jason, it's easy for a Republican to disagree with Obama about supporting alternative energy and in hindsight we find that China was able to undercut pricing so that our domestic investment was a bust. Bottom line... IMO, no Bush, no Iraq war. Period. I'm sick of people attacking Obama with the implicit suggestion that Romney will turn past failures into future successes. The realistic POV is that voting in Romney will not change anything. There will continue to be waste and failures.

Nothing in that statement supports Obama. It argues that unless we know what we want we aren't going to get it from either side. These guys attacking Obama might as well be saying if we get Obama out, then we can all eat cheese sandwiches and the economy will improve.

From my perspective... Romney is philosophically a traitor to the country. He represents the trillions that leave our economy seeking tax havens from their mother country. Why would someone with hundreds of millions or billions want to not pay taxes on their earning? What possible motive does someone with that much money have to not want their earnings (not wealth) taxed? It reminds me of playing online role playing games. Where your only goal is to acquire assets, just to say.... "Hey I'm the greatest".

Yes, you can say... It's their money and it's within the law. That's fine and dandy if it's a Bill Gates, but I'm not voting for them. IMO far more Republicans will be voting for the Party with it's empty suit, while more Democrats will still be voting for the man.

I also disagree with your suggestion that we need to vote for alternating parties as long as they are both bad choices. I thought that way once... for about 30 sec. Then I realized that if you want change, you must demand it. As a second choice vote for the lessor of two evils, until the greater gets a clue and changes. Problem is that the voters are divided down the middle in every race.

I don't even agree with your assessment that Obama blew his chance. He has done a lot in office. And quite frankly given the political and economic climate I can't see much more than he accomplished being accomplished by anyone else.

"This is the very reason that I dismiss everything you say here, you are so naive it is ridiculous. We took military action against Libya and Gaddifi and didn't go through congress as required by the US Constitution."

Jason. Sorry to abandon you on this topic. I just don't see a point. John and Jeremy believe what they believe and can't be convinced as to what you believe.

The basic difference to me is that Obama believes in massive entitlement programs. It is my belief that if Romney and Obama were going to both drive us down the path to financial ruin, Obama's path would be longer lasting. I say this because it's my belief that entitlement programs create a society that is ever dependent upon government.
Lets say that Romney spends his trillions on military. Military spending is much easier to reverse than reversing spending on entitlement programs.

Cliff, doesn't everyone believe what they want to believe? Are you telling me you believe what you don't want to believe? In reality I believe what I conclude to believe from my observation and interpretation of the facts.

Let's say that you are correct in that Obama wants more entitlement spending and Romney wants to spend more sending troops overseas. My conclusion from that is that Obama wants to keep the money in the domestic economy and Romney wants to send it overseas. Points for Obama.

OK, entitlement spending makes people more dependent. But what does desperation do? If people poor people are satisfied then they are less likely to be politically active than if they are desperate. Which means the political shift towards socialism will be stemmed from apathy among the poor. Again points for Obama. Besides all that entitlement spending is likely to go to rent, power, food, and support local businesses. Points for Obama.

we just don't agree on your logic. I see no points for Obama in your logic. You are to well read to truly believe that Obama keeps American dollars in America.
and yes, on the belief comments. It was just a poor intro. I also would like to believe that you are well read enough to know the historical disasters of other countries that have slide down the path of "over" entitling their people. I don't argue that we have a responsibility as a nation to help the needy and the "poor, but we have traveled WAY passed the line in the sand that signifies rational policy and enforcement.
I have encountered, first hand, people that choose not to work because they make the same money by not working. The system is broken. Obama doesn't want to fix it, he wants to add to it. His entire mantra is to take from the rich in order to create more programs for the poor. It simple won't work. It hasn't worked so far.
Even FDR's treasury secretary and financial advisors (after the fact) said that they regretted trying to spend their way out of a recession/depression.

He's doing a really bad job of taking from the rich. You guys seem to forget that it's one man, one vote in this country. The more that you make the poor worse off the more you will be in the minority at the voting booth. The problem with the poor is lack of opportunity. Yes, it is possible for anyone in any class to make it in America. But that isn't the issue. We need opportunities for the majority to do well enough. It is that issue that's being ignored because of the difficulty of assessing why opportunities for people at all levels are disappearing.

The Republicans believe that if you lower taxes on the class of people who are doing increasingly better, I.E. the upper earners, that will create opportunities for those of lessor means. IMO that is a stretch because the motivation to create jobs is not substantiated in that line of reasoning. The flip side is that taxing the high earners will not create any significant changes in employment either. Yet, the whole economy argument keeps centering around this irrelevant line of reasoning.

Nope. Spending money on the poor ends up in China like the rest of the money. Keep taxing the middle class and yes even the rich will continue to limit funds to the government. More importantly the State and local governments. Keep up the war on the people is all the democrats are about. They keep talking they are for the poor and middle class all the while making policy after policy that kills the middle class. Not protecting the boarders, overturning an amendment in California that 70% of the people voted for that made it illegal for tax money to be used for illegals, environmental regulations that make it more expensive to do business, constant talk of taxing the rich, Obamacare, energy policy that makes it harder to get resources in country, always deferring to the UN for authority. I can go on. The democrats are all about draining resources from the country in name of the third world. I say no more. You give this "republicans are rich and Romney represents them" bull Sh#t. The democrats do not represent us, they represent obama's home country (not the US). Make no mistake, the democrats are the richest of the rich. The voting trends even support that. All the richest area's of the country vote democrat, the wealthiest business people are democrats, hollywood pretty much all democrats. Don't fool yourself on who is rich. The money moving off shore is a symptom of the democrat policies that have been laid before us. Money is money. I will never fault a business for doing what the government is making happen. The businesses have an obligation to keep our retirement savings safe so we can retire. Just like obama's speech regarding small businesses did not build that, well jobs did not move off shore without a government willing to make the policy that allowed that to happen and obama and his ilk are leading the charge.

I don't disagree.
I have said before, that I am not opposed to a tax increase if it goes toward debt reduction.

As a business owner, I can tell you that if regulations and taxes are increased, the management of the company is less likely to hire. Business is about profits. If taxes and or penalties increase, the money needed to keep the profits healthy is going to come from somewhere. I, one, would start cooking again and let someone go, if that's what it meant to be able to keep a boat, cars, house and send my girls to college. It seems as though the left would vilify me for feeling that way.

With all this being said.....

I am about 48 hours away from pulling the trigger on another location
this would create 30 more jobs

I would have to have it under a separate corp. in order to stay below that 50 employee Obamacare rule. Like I said before, I will offer insurance when the market deems it necessary.

If/when I do get this one open I will need some help from local crew WW. In the restaurant biz, you usually run an invite only day/shift in order to test your crew before you actually open for business.
This is a free event for the people invited. It involves a complete meal including a chip or two for a beer. I will send out some invites if / when I get that far

And, no Obama, I don't really need your help in order for it to succeed. In fact, please stay "out of the way". My state and local government have provided me with all of the necessary roads and bridges

Cliff, are you telling me that if taxes are raised a little at the $200K level that you would take on a minimum wage cook job in addition to your other duties so you could hang on to maybe 60% of that minimum wage salary? I'm calling BS on that. What if it was raised at $1/2M? Still willing to tack on another 40 hours for a couple hundred bucks a week? That's a real compelling argument.... not!

no, but it all adds up. And, there are some governments that make you wonder....what's next.

I am just trying to convey how business owners think. If you combine all of the expenses that the government can and does levy against business, and profits are affected, then the result could be a job or two lost

My neighbor has a electrician business. He told me one of the first questions he asks a perspective employee is "how much money are you going to make for me". Basically he explains that the employee has to provide enough value to pay for themselves. It is hard for a small business to provide extra jobs to people if there is not any value. That is why many small businesses do not have extra people doing payroll and other tasks if they are not actually touching the product.

LOL, I'd tell him that he shouldn't be hiring if he hasn't already answered that question.

This brings up a good point, John and Jeremy, what businesses have you started, built, ran, created, took over, etc... Are you guys like Obama in the fact that he has never owned or ran a business in his life and has zero private market experience? Tell us about your business experience....